2010 Knight Soul of the Community Report - San Jose by Knight Foundation

Knight Soul of the Community 2010 Why People Love Where They Live and Why It Matters: A Local Perspective

California

1 o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

At the Knight Foundation, our mission is to create more informed and engaged communities. We emphasize transformational projects. The Soul of the Community project reflects this mission. This study offers leaders a radically new way to think about their community and invites creative approaches for improvement. The report, based on interviews with residents in 26 Knight communities, proves that a significant connection exists between residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; levels of emotional attachment to their community and its economic growth. It presents surprising and nearly universal findings about why people form lasting emotional bonds to where they live. We hope these discoveries inspire renewed engagement in all residents and create lasting, positive change. Paula Lynn Ellis, Vice President/Strategic Initiatives John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

2 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

table of contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Community Attachment: An Emotional Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Why Attachment Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Relationship to Community Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 How Gallup Found the Factors With the Strongest Links to Attachment. . . . . . . . . 9 What Matters Most. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Findings for San Jose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Overall Attachment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Key Drivers of Attachment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Who Is Most Attached in San Jose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Implications for San Jose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Strengths to Leverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Opportunities to Prioritize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

Introduction On behalf of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup, we are pleased to present the third annual Soul of the Community report. This study was conducted over three years in 26 cities across the United States where Knight Foundation is active. It was designed to find out what emotionally attaches people to a community — what makes them want to put down roots and build a life there. In today’s challenging economic climate, community leaders are seeking new ways to attract and retain people, develop prosperous economies, add intellectual capital, and create jobs. This report provides a fresh perspective about the current driving factors of passion and loyalty in a community. Most importantly, it represents the voice of the residents themselves. Gallup gathered insights from nearly 43,000 individuals, and the resulting picture will help community leaders to answer important questions such as: What makes residents love where they live? What draws people to a place and keeps them there? The study provides empirical evidence that the drivers that create emotional bonds between people and their community are consistent in virtually every city and can be reduced to just a few categories. Interestingly, the usual suspects — jobs, the economy, and safety — are not among the top drivers. Rather, people consistently give higher ratings for elements that relate directly to their daily quality of life: an area’s physical beauty, opportunities for socializing, and a community’s openness to all people. Remarkably, the study also showed that the communities with the highest levels of attachment had the highest rates of gross domestic product growth. Discoveries like these open numerous possibilities for leaders from all sectors to inform their decisions and policies with concrete data about what generates community and economic benefits. This report is not meant to be prescriptive, but rather to inform and engage leaders in new thinking and action. We hope you will read it, share it, and discuss with others what it might mean for the future of communities across our country. Our hope is that this leads to new conversations and partnerships, and new ways for all of us to work together to increase people’s attachment, to strengthen our cities, and to ensure a brighter future for all people and communities. 4 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

Community Attachment: An Emotional Connection

Community attachment is an emotional connection to a place that transcends satisfaction, loyalty, and even passion. Community Attitudinal A community’s most attached residents = + Passion Attachment Loyalty have strong pride in it, a positive outlook on the community’s future, and a sense that it is the perfect place for them. They are less likely to want to leave than residents without this emotional connection. They feel a bond to their community that is stronger than just being happy about where they live.

Why Attachment Matters Over the past three years, the Soul of the Community study has found a positive correlation between community attachment and local GDP growth. Across the 26 Knight communities, those whose residents were more attached saw more local GDP growth. This is a key metric in assessing community success because local GDP growth not only measures a community’s economic success, but also its ability to grow and meet residents’ needs. Local GDP Growth by Levels of Community Attachment CA Correlation to GDP Growth=.411 CA Correlation to Population Growth=.374

GDP Growth (2006-2009)

Population Growth (2006-2009)

6.9%

6.7%

7 GROWTH

6 5 4 2.6%

3 2 1 0 -1

0.3%

2.1%

-0.2%

<3.70 (n=7 communities)

3.71-3.84 (n=9 communities)

3.85+ (n=7 communities)

Gallup research proving the link between employee engagement in a workplace to business outcomes such as productivity, profitability, and employee retention helps to underscore why emotional attachment matters. Just as actively engaged employees are more productive and committed to the success of their organizations, highly attached residents are more likely to actively contribute to a community’s growth.

COMMUNITY ATTACHMENT

GDP and population growth figures available for 23 of the 26 communities.

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

The Relationship to Community Outcomes Precisely how community attachment affects community outcomes is at best a scientific guess at this point. However, the data make clear that highly attached residents are more likely to want to stay in their current communities. When this is true for college graduates and other productive residents, it increases the number of talented, highly educated workers striving to positively affect economic growth. Highly attached residents are also more likely to see their communities as being open to many kinds of people, including talented, young college graduates and families with young children. Communities that are more open to diversity are better able to compete for talent. Attachment is also higher when residents agree that their communities provide the social offerings and aesthetics they enjoy. When residents enjoy their community’s offerings, they are more likely to spend their money on local activities and businesses, directly benefiting the local economy.

Knight Foundation works in 26 communities where the Knight brothers owned newspapers.

Grand Forks, ND - MSA Duluth, MN - MSA Aberdeen, SD - µSA

St. Paul, MN - MSA Gary, IN - MD

San Jose, CA - MSA

Boulder, CO - MSA

Detroit, MI - MSA State College, PA - MSA Philadelphia, PA - MD Akron, OH - MSA

Fort Wayne, IN - MSA

Lexington, KY - MSA

Wichita, KS - MSA

Charlotte, NC - MSA

City of Long Beach, CA - MD

Columbia, SC - MSA

Myrtle Beach, SC - MSA

Milledgeville, GA - µSA Macon, GA - MSA

Columbus, GA - MSA Very High Urban Density - Very Large Population

Biloxi, MS - MSA

Tallahassee, FL - MSA

Very High Urban Density - Large Population Very High Urban Density - Medium Population High Urban Density - Medium Population Medium/Low Urban Density - Medium/Low Population

6 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

Community boundaries are based on government geography definitions.

Bradenton, FL - MSA Palm Beach, FL - MD

MSA = Metropolitan Statistical Area MD = Metropolitan Division µSA = Micropolitan Statistical Area

Miami, FL - MD

Highly attached residents are more likely to see their communities as being open to many kinds of people.

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

8 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

How Gallup Found the Factors With the Strongest Links to Attachment To find out what drives attachment, Gallup asked residents five questions examining their level of attachment to their community and then asked them to rate various aspects of the community such as basic services, the local economy, social offerings, and openness. Gallup then analyzed the relationship between the overall level of community attachment and residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions of aspects of the community itself to reveal the strongest links. The greater the correlation between attachment and a given factor, the stronger the link. Using this analysis, Gallup ranked the aspects of communities that have the strongest links to attachment, understanding that even small differences can be very meaningful. Community Attribute

Correlation to Attachment* 2008

2009

2010

Social Offerings

0.49

0.52

0.54

Openness

0.53

0.52

0.50

Aesthetics

0.51

0.50

0.49

Education

0.47

0.44

0.47

Basic Services

0.41

0.34

0.42

Leadership

0.41

0.40

0.39

Economy

0.41

0.39

0.36

Safety

0.22

0.19

0.23

Social Capital

0.14

0.16

0.15

Civic Involvement

0.06

0.04

*The higher the correlation, the more closely the attribute is related to attachment.

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

When examining each factor in the study and its relationship to attachment, the same items rise to the top, year after year: •

Social Offerings — Places for people to meet each other and the feeling that people in the community care about each other

•

Openness — How welcoming the community is to different types of people, including families with young children, minorities, and talented college graduates

•

Aesthetics — The physical beauty of the community including the availability of parks and green spaces

Knight Community

Aesthetics

Key Drivers of Attachment in 2010

Openness

What attaches residents to their communities doesn’t change much from place to place. While one might expect the drivers of attachment would be different in Miami from those in Macon, Ga., in fact the main drivers of attachment differ little across communities. Whether you live in San Jose, Calif., or State College, Pa., the things that connect you to your community are generally the same.

Social Offerings

What Matters Most

Attribute Rank in 2010

Overall

Aberdeen, SD Akron, OH Biloxi, MS Boulder, CO Bradenton, FL Charlotte, NC Columbia, SC Columbus, GA Detroit, MI Duluth, MN Fort Wayne, IN Gary, IN Grand Forks, ND Lexington, KY City of Long Beach, CA Macon, GA Miami, FL Milledgeville, GA Myrtle Beach, SC Palm Beach, FL Philadelphia, PA San Jose, CA St. Paul, MN State College, PA Tallahassee, FL Wichita, KS

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2

2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2

10 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

While the study also measures perceptions of the local economy and basic services, these three factors are always more important in terms of their relationship to community attachment. This is not to say that communities should focus on building parks when jobs aren’t available. However, it does make it clear that these other factors, beyond basic needs, should be included when thinking about economic growth and development. These seemingly softer needs have an even larger effect than previously thought when it comes to residents’ attachment to their communities. Generally, demographics are not the strongest drivers of attachment. In almost every community Gallup studied, attachment is more strongly related to certain perceptions of the community than to residents’ age, race, income, or other demographic characteristics. In other words, whether a resident is young or old, wealthy or poor, or black, white, or Hispanic matters less than his or her perceptions of the community. This reality gives community leaders a powerful tool to influence residents’ attachment to the community, no matter who they are.

Key Community Attributes Social Offerings includes perceptions of: Vibrant nightlife Good place to meet people Other people care about each other Availability of arts and cultural opportunities* Availability of social community events*

Openness includes perceptions of: Good place for older people Good place for racial and ethnic minorities Good place for families with young children Good place for gays and lesbians Good place for young, talented college graduates looking for work Good place for immigrants Good place for young adults without children*

Aesthetics includes perceptions of: Availability of parks, playgrounds, and trails Beauty or physical setting

*New in 2010. Not included in overall attribute score to allow for trending to previous years.

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

Findings for San jose Metropolitan Statistical Area Overall Attachment

In San Jose, the overall community attachment mean score continued to trend downward in 2010. The community’s 2010 attachment score of 3.84 out of a possible 5.00 is down slightly from 3.85 in 2009 and 3.88 in 2008. Results reflect surveys conducted in San Benito and Santa Clara counties. The current attachment score is on par with the average score for the comparison group of other very high urban density, large population Knight communities of St. Paul, Minn. (3.90), Palm Beach, Fla. (3.80), and Charlotte, N.C. (3.70).

Attachment Over Time Not Attached CA Mean

Neutral

Attached

3.88

3.85

3.84

29.3%

28.8%

27.1%

42.4%

39.7%

43.5%

28.3%

31.6%

29.3%

2008

2009

2010

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Findings in this report represent the San Jose MSA unless otherwise noted.

Community Attachment in All Large Population — Very High Urban Density Communities 2008

2009

2010

Charlotte, NC

3.74

3.70

Palm Beach, FL

3.78

3.73

3.80

St. Paul, MN

3.82

3.90

San Jose, CA

3.88

3.85

3.84

Comparison Group Mean

3.81

3.80

3.83

12 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

Key Drivers of Attachment

San Jose residents’ perceptions of the social offerings, aesthetics, and openness, in that order, have the strongest links to attachment in the community. Last year, education edged out social offerings for a place among the top three drivers in San Jose. While not in the top three this year, education remains strongly connected to attachment in San Jose. •

•

Social Offerings: San Jose residents’ perceptions of their community’s social offerings have remained relatively flat over the past three years. Residents continue to rate their community lower on social offerings than other comparable Knight communities. They rank the availability of social community events, the availability of arts and cultural opportunities, and the ability to meet people the highest of the social offerings measured. They rate “other people care about each other” the lowest, with nearly two-thirds giving this metric a low score.

Social Offerings Percentage of Residents Rating Social Offerings Highly 50%

2008

2009

2010

40%

25%

23%

20%

22%

25% 23% 19% 17% 18%

18% 9% 9%

10% 0%

31%

28%

30%

Vibrant Nightlife

Arts and Good Place Other People to Meet People Care About Cultural Each Other Opportunities*

Social Community Events*

Overall Social Offerings

*New in 2010. Not included in domain score to allow trending.

Aesthetics: The availability of parks, playgrounds, and trails and the beauty or physical setting of the community are key elements of attachment in San Jose. More than 4 in 10 residents continue to give high marks to parks, playgrounds, and trails, and more than a third say the same about the beauty or physical setting of the community. While these are areas of strength for San Jose, the community still lags compared with some comparable Knight communities.

Aesthetics Percentage of Residents Rating Aesthetics Highly 2008

50% 40%

39%

38%

2009

2010

41% 36%

33%

35%

38%

36%

38%

30% 20% 10% 0%

Parks, Playgrounds, and Trails

Beauty or Physical Setting

Overall Aesthetics

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

Openness Percentage of Residents Rating Openness Highly 2008

27% 27% 25%

24%

27% 26% 26%

31% 31% 29%

27%

24% 26% 27%

19% 18% 23%

20%

2010

19%

30%

33%

40%

2009

37%

50%

30%

Openness: San Jose residents’ perceptions of their community’s openness reveal mixed momentum. The groups that San Jose residents perceive their community to be most open to include racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, families with young children, and gays and lesbians. Residents perceive the community to be the least open to young, talented college graduates, with more than half saying it is not a good place for them — and still fewer than in 2009.

24%

•

10% 0%

Young, Immigrants Racial and Families Gays and Talented Ethnic With Lesbians College Minorities Young Graduates Children *New in 2010. Not included in domain score to allow trending.

Older People

Overall Young Openness Adults Without Children*

Education •

Education: San Jose residents continue to rate the quality of colleges and universities in their community high, despite some decline in the score since 2009. On the other hand, residents rate the quality of K-12 public schools significantly lower — with nearly half expressing negative views — and again, ratings have decreased since last year.

Percentage of Residents Rating Education Highly 2008

50%

2009 41%

40%

2010

40% 36% 32%

30% 22%

20%

19%

29%

28%

20%

10% 0%

Quality of K-12 Public Schools

Quality of Colleges and Universities

Overall Education

14 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

1.45

Economy 2009

Leadership 2009

Leadership 2010

1.65

Economy 2010

1.85

Involvement 2009 2.05

Aesthetics 2010

2.25

Social Capital 2010 Social Capital 2009

Aesthetics 2009

Involvement 2010

Safety 2009

Safety 2010

Education 2010

Openness 2009 Education 2009

Performance Rating

Basic Services 2009

Basic Services 2010

Social Offerings 2009

Openness 2010

Social Offerings 2010

Drivers positioned farther up are more influential in causing emotional attachment. Drivers positioned farther to the right are rated by respondents as being better performing in a community. A driver that is both influential in causing emotional attachment and not rated as well performing (i.e., one that is positioned in the top left quadrant) represents an area of opportunity as an improvement in performance will have a particularly high impact on improving emotional attachment.

1.25

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Opportunity

Summary Table of Strengths and Opportunities

Influence on Community Attachment

2.45

Strength

Who Is Most Attached in san jose

While demographic characteristics don’t have as much effect on attachment as residents’ perceptions of their communities, patterns do emerge among various groups.

•

Geography: Those residents in the San Jose area who live outside the primary city limits are more attached to the community than those who live inside San Jose.

Community Attachment by Geography 2008

2009

2010

5.00 4.50

3.94

3.93

4.00

3.87

3.79

3.87

3.78

3.56

3.50

3.58

3.57

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00

City

Community Attachment by Age

3.58 3.57

4.20

4.16

4.05

3.68

3.77

3.69

3.86

3.83

2010

3.70

3.77

3.72

3.83

2009

3.56

3.50

3.82 3.94

4.00

3.80

4.50

3.86

2008

5.00 4.01

Age: Attachment is highest among San Jose residents who are 65 and older. The age group with the second highest level of attachment is the 25- to 34-year-olds, closely followed by the 18- to 24-year-old age group. The 45- to 54-year-old and 55- to 64-year-old age groups have the lowest level of attachment.

3.32

•

Knight Communities OVERALL

Non-City

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00

18-24

•

Education: Attachment is highest among San Jose residents who have a high school education or less and lowest among residents who have some college education.

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Knight Communities OVERALL

Community Attachment by Education 2008

5.00

2009

2010

4.50 4.00

3.98

4.09

3.94

3.87

3.74

3.72

3.84 3.78

3.82 3.56

3.50

3.58

3.57

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00

High School or Less

Some College

College Plus

Knight Communities OVERALL

16 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

â&#x20AC;˘

Community Tenure: Attachment is highest among residents who have lived in San Jose for 20 years or more, followed by those who have lived there for 6 to 19 years. Those who have lived in the community for up to five years have the lowest levels of attachment.

Community Attachment by Tenure 2008

5.00

2009

2010

4.50 4.00

3.74

3.73

3.69

3.91

3.78

3.84

3.91

3.90

3.86 3.56 3.58 3.57

3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00

0-5 Years

6-19 Years

20+ Years

Knight Communities OVERALL

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

Implications for

san jose

F o r more d et a i l ed re c o m m e n d a ti o n s p l e a se go t o www.s ouloft hecommunit y.org/ s a n- jos e

Strengths to Leverage

Opportunities to Prioritize

Residents give San Jose high marks in the area of aesthetics — particularly the availability of outdoor parks, playgrounds, and trails and the beauty or physical setting of the community. Because aesthetics is a key driver of attachment, further investment in the community’s shared outdoor spaces will help to increase residents’ overall attachment to San Jose.

Although social offerings are a strength overall, San Jose residents tend to score their community lower on all dimensions than do other residents from comparable Knight Foundation communities. Residents generally do not feel that San Jose has a vibrant nightlife with restaurants, clubs, and bars. New investments in this area — to recruit and promote new offerings — will help to increase residents’ attachment to San Jose.

The quality of higher education is another strength in San Jose, though residents became less positive since 2009. Leaders should do more to promote and engage residents in San Jose’s higher education offerings. Doing so may also help to increase attachment among those residents with some college education or more. While residents gave San Jose mixed ratings on openness, the community’s scores are higher than comparable Knight Foundation communities’ scores on several dimensions. Leaders should do more to communicate an atmosphere welcoming to all groups of people. Efforts to increase opportunities for young, talented college graduates could help twofold as this would also likely increase attachment among younger age groups.

Because San Jose residents rate the perception that people care about each other lowest, events that bring people together to foster more interaction and understanding are likely to have a compounding effect for community attachment. Leaders also have much to gain by improving perceptions of K-12 education in the community. Not only doing so will increase attachment overall, but a more positive perception of K-12 education can help to increase the perception that the community is a good place for families with young children.

18 S o u l o f t h e c o mm u n i t y. o r g

Methodology The Gallup study is a 15-minute phone survey conducted in the 26 communities the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation serves, including San Jose. The survey is available in English and Spanish, and both landlines and cell phones are called. Each year, a random sample of at least 400 residents, aged 18 and older, is interviewed in each community, with additional interviews conducted in selected resident communities. In 2010, 15,200 interviews were conducted, with 1,000 conducted in eight resident communities, including San Jose. The 2010 study also included 200 interviews among residents aged 18 to 34 in the resident communities to give Gallup more information about that age group. Overall data were adjusted to ensure an accurate representation of the real demographic makeup of each community based on U.S. Census Bureau data. Gallup also used U.S. Census classifications to choose the geographical area included in each community. For the most part, Gallup used the Metropolitan Statistical Area. However, in a few cases, Gallup used other accepted definitions of the community area. These census definitions allow Gallup to compare other information such as local GDP and population growth so that Gallup can more closely examine community attachment and key community outcomes. In San Jose, Gallup interviewed residents in San Benito and Santa Clara counties. 19 Copyright ÂŠ 2010 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

o n t w i t t e r : # S OT C

Judith Kleinberg Program Director for San Jose and Silicon Valley John S. & James L. Knight Foundation (650) 617-3494 kleinberg@knightfoundation.org

About the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation advances journalism in the digital age and invests in the vitality of communities where the Knight brothers owned newspapers. Knight Foundation focuses on projects that promote informed and engaged communities and lead to transformational change. For more, visit www.knightfoundation.org

Contact us: soul@knightfoundation.org 20 J o i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n o n Tw i t t e r v i a tShoeu lho a sf ht h t aegc o #S O TuCn i t y. o r g mm